This article proposes a method for examining how disciplinary differences in knowledge making are created or reflected at the sentence level. The method focuses on the grammatical subjects of sentences as key indicators of disciplinary knowledge making. Grammatical subjects of all sentences in sample academic journal articles were classified by a system identifying (a) the kind of abstraction or particularism involved and (b) the ways in which the researcher may or may not have foregrounded research methods and warrants. Findings from the sample articles in subfields of psychology, history, and literature indicated that psychology articles were more likely to foreground research methods and warrants and least likely to be particularistic. History articles tended to be intermediate. Literature articles were most likely to be particularistic and least likely to focus on research methods and warrants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barton, A.
(1991). Perils of historicism. The New York Review of Books, 38, 53-56.
2.
Bazerman, C.
(1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
Bazerman, C.
(1991). Review: The second stage in writing across the curriculum. College English, 53, 209-212.
4.
Belsky, J.
, & Rovine, M. J. (1988). Nonmaternal care in the first year of life and the security of infant-parent attachment. Child Development, 59, 157-167.
5.
Boose, L. E.
(1987). The family in Shakespeare studies: Or—studies in the family of Shakespeareans; or—the politics of politics. Renaissance Quarterly, 40, 707-741.
6.
Broadhead, G. J.
, Berlin, J. A., & Broadhead, M. M. (1982). Sentence structure in academic prose and its implications for college writing teachers. Research in the Teaching of English, 16, 225-240.
7.
Eiler, M. A.
(1986). Thematic Distribution as a heuristic for written discourse function. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional approaches to writing: Research perspectives (pp. 49-68). London: Frances Pinter.
8.
Fahnestock, J.
, & Secor, M. (1992). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 76-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
9.
Greenblatt, S.
(1985). Invisible bullets: Renaissance authority and its subversion, Henry IV and Henry V. In J. Dollimore & A. Sinfield (Eds.), Political Shakespeare: New essays in cultural materialism (pp. 18-47). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
Gleenblatt, S.
(1988). Shakespearean negotiations: The circulation of social energy in Renaissance England. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Hoey, M.
(1986). Overlapping patterns of discourse organization and their implications for clause relational analysis in problem-solution texts. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writings: Linguistic approaches (pp. 187-214). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Howard, J. E.
(1983). Renaissance antitheatricality and the politics of gender and rank in Much Ado About Nothing. In J. E. Howard & M. F. O'Connor (Eds.), Shakespeare Reproduced: The text in history and ideology (pp. 163-187). New York: Methuen.
13.
Howard J.
(1986). The new historicism in Renaissance studies. English Literary Renaissance, 16, 13-43.
14.
Huckin, T. N.
(1992). Context-sensitive text analysis. In G. Kirsch & P. A. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and methodology in composition research (pp. 84-104). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
15.
Huckin, T.
, & Pesante, L. (1988). Existentialthere. Written Communication, 5, 368-391.
16.
Lautamatti, L.
(1986). Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text (pp. 87-113). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17.
Lentricchia, F.
(1989). Foucault's legacy: A new historicism. In H. A. Veeser (Ed.), The New Historicism (pp. 231-242). New York: Routledge.
18.
Levin, R.
(1990). The poetics and politics of bardicide. PMLA, 105, 491-504.
19.
Lovejoy, K. B.
(1991). Cohesion and information strategies in academic writing: Analysis of passages in three disciplines. Linguistics and Education, 3, 315-343.
20.
MacDonald, S. P.
(1987). Problem definition in academic writing. College English, 49, 315-331.
21.
MacDonald, S. P.
(1989). Data-driven and conceptually-driven academic discourse. Written Communication, 6, 411-435.
22.
Neely, C. T.
(1988). Constructing the subject: Feminist practice and the new Renaissance discourses. English Literary Renaissance, 18, 5-18.
23.
Porter, C.
(1988). Are we being historical yet?South Atlantic Quarterly, 87, 745-786.
24.
Price, D. J. de S.
(1970). Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. In C. E. Nelson & D. K. Pollock (Eds.), Communication among scientists and engineers (pp. 3-22). Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.
25.
Quirk, R.
, & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A concise grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
26.
Russell, D.
(1991). Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870-1990: A curricular history. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
27.
Toulmin, S.
(1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
Vande Kopple, W. J.
(1986). Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written text. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 72-111). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
Vande Kopple, W. J.
(1991). Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse. Written Communication, 8, 311-347.
30.
Vande Kopple, W. J.
(1992). Noun phrases and the style of scientific discourse. In S. P. Witte, N. Nakadate, & R. D. Cherry (Eds.), A rhetoric of doing: Essays on written discourse in honor of James L. Kinneavy (pp. 328-348). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
31.
Waters, J. J.
(1982). Family, inheritance, and migration in colonial New England: The evidence from Guilford, Connecticut. The William and Mary Quarterly (Ser. 3), 39, 64-86.
32.
Williams, J. M.
(1989). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
33.
Witte, S. P.
(1983). Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34, 313-341.
34.
Witte, S. P.
, & Cherry, R. D. (1986). Writing processes and written products in composition research. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Eds.), Studying writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 112-153). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
